9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which case it cannot be said that there was any mala-fide suppression on the part of the appellant - demand raised by invoking the longer period of limitation is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lower Authorities did not find favour with the appellant's contentions and accordingly confirmed the demand along with imposition of penalty, etc. Hence, the present appeal. 5. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the impugned order, we note that the said Service Tax amounting to ₹ 15,31,000/- was paid by the appellant in respect of amount shown as "other income‟ in their records. The payment was made under the Category/Head/Account of "Business Auxiliary Services". However subsequently the appellant realized that the said "other income‟ was on account of differential cartage and as such the Service Tax was required to be paid under the category of "Transport of Goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8223;, the appellant stand of the "other income‟ having been arisen on account of the Transportation Activities has to be accepted in which case the appellant would be entitled to Cenvat credit of the same. 7. Apart from the above, we also note that the appellant had taken the Credit on 31/10/2007, whereas the Show Cause Notice stands issued on 15/04/2011, by invoking the longer period of limitation. The Lower Authorities have observed that had it not been audited the said fact would have escaped the attention of the Revenue and as such there was a suppression on the part of the assessee. We note that the audit has also found out the said fact from the scrutiny of the records maintained by the appellant. The credit was availed by ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
